Transfer rates

Here are the transfer rates of the iPod Classic and Nano with files of real sizes, from a few Kb for photos up to several hundred MB for entire discographies. The iPod Classic is of course way ahead, but this comparison makes little sense as it has a hard drive, not flash memory. With the average transfer rates of music files, you should count about 2 and a half hours to fill up the iPod Classics’s 74 available GB, and around 40 minutes for the nano’s 7.4 GB.

Here we realised that the new iPod Nano’s transfer rates are identical to those of it’s predecessor. So the Nano still performs relatively well compared to it competition. The iPod Classics’s transfer rates are good overall and could very well be used for occasional data backup.

In addition to this the sound quality is immensely improved on the iPod Classic and the Nano. We noted great strides being made in the clarity and crispness of the sound. This is particularly true of the Classic.

This is reinforced by the good management of the intervals between tracks. The iPod Nano and Classic are gapless mp3 players, which means they are capable of playing successive tracks without any interval (provided you’ve set it up to do so in the information field of your songs). For comparison’s sake, an mp3 player which doesn’t have this function necessarily creates empty spaces between tracks the length of a couple of milliseconds for the Creative ZEN V for example, around a second for Samsung T9 and K3 mp3 players which we recently tested, maybe even more. So it is great that Apple have kept this function on their new mp3 players!

Sound quality also relies on the headphones. The reason we will only quickly talk of these was because we had the occasion to test them a couple of times. Because the headphones provided are a little underwhelming (considering the advances in the quality of sound given) you might consider buying an entirely different pair. This is certainly the case if you want to take advantage of this new feature.

Breakdown

With their new interface, much better performances, huge capacities (size in Gbs) for the Classic and a remarkable screen for the Nano, the competition would be advised to work hard. The iPods are back in the race and are clearly playing to their advantage, far from giving themselves a deceptive marketing image.

iPod Nano

The most impressive of the two iPods in this test is without a doubt the 3rd generation iPod Nano, the appearance and front of which is hard to resist. If its design doesn’t convince you all you have to do is turn it on to discover it’s screen and the superior interface it has compared to the Classic. If watching long videos on it seems too far fetched or demanding, its screen size and resolution are still considerable assets, it has all the functions present on the classic, with a design which is close to being as comfortable, which is something remarkable.

So, the owners of the previous generation’s Nanos (1 or 2 GB) should very well be tempted with this new modelWe do miss the more practical shape of the previous models, easier to handle and to slide into your pocket. We will however be indulgent considering the remarkable size of the new iPod Nano, particularly it’s trim little design. Although it does have certain imperfections, mainly the program of the mp3 player, namely its non reactive menus and a few bugs with iTunes. A last effort from Apple must be made to finish their product and we think that Apple may have rushed these product to market.